Now it is really confusing: we Catholics are told that we should confess our sin before we go to communion. But now the Diocese Washington apologized that one of its priests denied communion to a lesbian who is living in an open gay relationship. Cardinal Wuerl is considered generally to be a good conservative prince of the Church. So one must really puzzle over what is happening.

The Archdiocese of Washington, DC, has issued an apology to a woman who was denied Communion by a priest who had just learned of her lesbian relationship.

Father Marcel Guarnizo declined to administer the Eucharist to Barbara Johnson at her mother’s funeral. Johnson reports that the priest told her she could not receive Communion because she was living in sin.

A spokesman for the Washington archdiocese said that Father Guarnizo’s action showed “a lack of pastoral sensitivity,” and was not in accordance with archdiocesan policy.

The Code of Canon Law (#915) stipulates that the Eucharist should not be administered to those who have been excommunicated “and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin.” The canon is generally understood to mean that a sin must be flagrant and public, creating a scandal, and that the sinner should be warned privately before a priest refuses to administer the Eucharist.

Washington’s Cardinal Donald Wuerl has indicated that he is not prepared to deny Communion even to prominent politicians who continue to support legal abortion despite repeated warnings from the hierarchy.

(Update: the report of msnbc.com on what happened before and during the funeral Mass, it is surprising that almost all, including Canon Lawyer Dr. Peters and Deacon’s Bench, only focus on the aspect of communion):

Barbara Johnson knew last Saturday, the day of her mother’s funeral, would be difficult. But she and her lesbian partner of 20 years had no idea that the priest at St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Gaithersburg, Md., would be a source of her grief.

Johnson, 51, of Washington, D.C, walked into the church, mourning the mom she described to msnbc.com as “a really cool woman; she was 85 going on 58.”

When Johnson and her partner arrived at the church – which her mom had attended, and her dad, too, before he died years prior – they were summoned by Rev. Marcel Guarnizo, a man they were meeting for the first time. He didn’t express his condolences, Johnson said, instead curtly getting down to business.

Johnson had painfully written a eulogy; her niece had also penned one. “We only allow one eulogy,” Guarnizo informed them, despite the fact that the church’s music director had told them otherwise, Johnson told msnbc.com. Johnson said she asked her partner to plead with Guarnizo to allow for two while she was called away for her pallbearer duties.

The day, already tense, was about to get significantly worse. Johnson said the priest denied her Communion at her own mother’s funeral, telling her he couldn’t give it to her because she was gay.

When it came time to hand out bread and wine, Guarnizo “issued a strong admonition that only Catholics in a state of grace can receive Communion,” Johnson told msnbc.com. “I went up. I was standing next to my mother’s casket and he covered the bowl, and said, ‘I cannot give you Communion because you are with a woman, and in the eyes of the church, that is a sin.’ I stood there with my mouth open in a state of shock for – I don’t know how long.”

But he wasn’t finished, Johnson said. Guarnizo had finally agreed to allow two eulogies, but she said family members told her that he proceeded to walk out of the service in the middle of Johnson’s dedication to her mother – something he didn’t do during her niece’s eulogy.

As the final insult, Johnson told msnbc.com, Guarnizo failed to attend her mother’s burial: “When the funeral home director appears, he says, ‘Father Marcel has taken ill. He says he has a migraine and is unable to accompany your mother’s remains to the cemetery.’ This was, for me and my family, his most egregious act.”

The Johnsons now want Guarnizo removed from his post, and are seeking an apology from him.

I wrote an email to the priest, expressing support for his action, and copying his immediate superior. And I’m not even Catholic — I’m an Evangelical Protestant. What a shame that his own church doesn’t back him up. Especially in light of the fact that he is obviously, self-evidently, in the right, per the Scriptures and per the Catholic church’s own rules.

If you want converts — heck, if you even want a shred of respect — you need to follow your own rules, without apology or excuse. Start by excommunicating “Catholic” abortiolaters, particularly those in the Senate. Place an anathema on Nancy Pelosi, and I just might show up at RCIA.

The priest not only denied Communion to the gay woman, whose mother was being buried, but he left the altar in the middle of the funeral AND refused to go to the gravesite. He left the entire famiy and congregants stranded. Where is your sense of compassion and kindness? The woman being buried was a life long Catholic who sent all of her children to Catholic schools. The priest decided to play politics at that moment and failed to take into account that he was asked to there to honor a Catholic woman and help bury her with some dignity. He utterly failed and should be ashamed.

Kelly, if so, then all the reports on the web are misreports, because all the headline, including these on the website of the Rainbowmovement says, Priest denied Communion to Lesbian, and then, Archdiocese apologized, as if the Archdiocese apologized exactly for the denial of communion to her. Also, I suspect that the media, as soon as this is known, picked it up and tried to politicise the story. And people in the Church made also the (perhaps mislead) inference that the Archdiocese apologized for the denial of communion.

The relate you made is interesting, if his behaviour was thus, he was certainly wrong. He is obliged to apologize but not the Archdiocese. Why should the Archdiocese apologize, for what? For the denial of communion or his inappropriate conduct? I think we lay people have a right to learn more. Because if the denial of communion to someone who has sinned is considered an offence, it will have an enormous impact upon the laity: should they still go to the confession before communion? Of course, according to Church teaching, we must. But some already very lax Catholics will say, it doesn’t matter at all, as the priest must give me the communion anyway and I have to right to receive it in any status anyway…

Now, under this aspect, it is not about that woman or that particular priest any more, it has a meaning to the Catholic laity in general.

Btw. the priest should not apologize solely to that particular lesbian but to the whole family Johnson, if what you said above is true.

The media shared the story because people had every right to know it. If some readers/viewers choose to run with the story as a political football, that is their right. What I see here is unChristlike behavior by a couple of priests. Clearly the parable of the Samaritan woman at the well was lost on these priests. I will try not to judge the priests, as I do not wish to be judged. Dorian

Cardinal Wuerl is not even close to being a conservative prelate. He is at best a go along to get a long type and at worst a modernist. This is unfortunately the state of the Episcopacy in this age as they show little to know spine. The Archdiocesan letter of apology it self contains within in it confusing if not heretical expressions of what the funeral was suppose to be about.

Just to make it short

1. Openly homosexuals cause scandal by showing up for communion and the priest would have caused scandal to the Church were to have giving her communion.

2. The lay are not to eulogize at funerals that is the job of clerics only.

The priest acted correctly and bravely in the face of a possible desecration of the sacrament. I can only wish that there were more clerics like him in the US. Alas I pray that this priest’s martyrdom is a great witness to the faithful.

To Kelly and Dorian who speak of compassion as it had been invented by the secular world. This priest showed great compassion as he did not let somebody who was not receiving the sacrament worthily and hence prevented her from damaging her soul. The other things that you call politics are in fact dogmas of the Faith which are indispensable for your salvation. I would invite you to look deeper in to your faith to learn why the priest actually did this.

There is invariably more to any story than meets the eye. Inevitable.
But possibly, this episode can be split into two: the sacred and the profane.

Toad has nothing to say regarding the sacred – does the priest have the right or maybe even the obligation, to refuse communion in this case? Don’t know.
Regarding the profane: Does the priest have the obligation to behave like a civilised human being, and not a petulant, ill-mannered yahoo in this case? Yes.

But …“2. The lay are not to eulogize at funerals that is the job of clerics only.” Giovani sez. Union matter, here, no doubt!

1. Agreed, without knowing the full circumstances of the case we can’t know whether canon 915 was correctly complied with;

2. Agreed in part – One version of the story has him being horridly insensitive, the other version has his attempts to deal with the situation in a sensitive manner being rebuffed. Unless I know which version (if either) is closer to the truth I find myself unwilling to pass judgment.

Barbara Johnson describes herself as a “lifelong Catholic and a teacher at a Catholic school” !!! And yet she appears to flaunt her gay lifestyle and not to know that receiving Holy Communion whilst living openly in mortal sin is wrong? What form of Catholicism does she teach those poor children I wonder?

One can feel sorry for Ms Johnson of course for the upset – having just lost her mother she was probably feeling especially sensitive – but a lot of unfortunate incidents accumulated that then caused the following disaster.

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo tried to forewarn her before the funeral Mass that she could not receive the Eucharist in her current circumstances, but apparently her ‘partner’ barred his way out of the sacristy – according to a first hand witness at the scene. I believe no apology from the Diocese of Wahington was necessary for this refusal of Communion; Fr. Marcel was simply fulfilling his conscientious duty as a Catholic priest.

It is true that the Church is not the place for an eulogy; this can be done at the wake afterwards. However Ms Johnson was reluctantly given permission when she persisted, and the priest’s leaving the Church during the reading of it was not because of his disagreement, but because he was unwell. That was also the reason why he was unable to accompany the coffin to the graveside. All this was interpreted the wrong way, as though he was being uncaring or cold, when he was not.

I think the Archdiocese of Washington should apologise to Father Marcel for their lack of loyalty and support.

You guys have to understand something. This “bishop” is a public heretic. He is denying the Catholic Faith. Catholics owe him NOTHING. In fact, that is our solemn duty: don’t give one penny in the collection basket. Demand that this cowardly “bishop” lives up to what he is supposed to be, defends the Faith he is supposed to have. Call him out on this.

What’s happening is that people are getting so dumbed-down that they don’t even know what the Catholic Faith even is anymore. They don’t know how to act. They don’t know how to behave. And it is because of simpering evil men like this so-called “Bishop.”

More and more people believe we have an antipope sitting in Rome, that these American “bishops” are antibishops, and this is exactly why. If the so-called leaders of the Church are not Catholic, then how can the faithful retain their religion at all?

The “priest” should have denied communion to the lesbian. The “archdiocese” gave all this clap-trap about “sensitivity”: is it “sensitive” to not rebuke someone living in mortal sin, when they will go to hell for all eternity?

There is nothing “confusing” about this event: the Novus Ordo is the apostate counter-church, to be avoided at all costs. Go to vaticancatholic.com

Blimey! With friends like Adrian, you really don’t need the likes of Toad, do you?
It’s getting so nutty on CP&S that the skeptical amphibion is himself sorely tempted to go to bat for the Dear Old Pontiff. (For whom he has a great deal of growing respect.)

Catholics, most of them, anyway,are rapidly gaining his sympathies (Toad’s that is, although no doubt the Pontiff would agree.) The whole shabby, ramshackle, gilded, structure is clearly in danger of imploding.
Which would be a pity. Thinks Toad. (and the Pope).

I didn’t expect a link to this blog entry from holyfamilymonastry, a sedi-vacantist website with their own “Antipope”.

I assume the few postings above which use this case against the Church, the Pope and the Bishops in general are from this source.

On the other side, it is a signal that this case is spreading confusion and it can be used as an argument against the Church if a prudent action is not taken in time.

I’ve spent some time upon this case, another Priest mentioned that the Archdiocese should also have told the lesbian woman that she has the duty to receive the communion in the status of grace, according to CIC 916. Why didn’t they do this? I find that the Apology from the Diocese very imprudent and inappropriate. Yes, that is my opinion. If the priest was rude or has done anything wrong, the Archdiocese should approach him first and ask him to make an apology. But because the case was brought up first by the Washington Post and later became known in other big media, so they might have felt obliged to make an apology to sooth the public anger. But, have they done the correct thing? According to my opinion not.

Hume, long before “intelligent design” raised its beautifully-designed head, speculated that the reason world is so badly “designed” is that possibly the Head God gave it to an Apprentice God to practice on, before giving the lad a serious planet to create.

Seems as plausible as anything else to Toad.

“Christ accepted a prostitute among His immediate followers; she was his disciple.” ..Probably insisted she give up the day job, though, Mr. W.

Whippy, old fruit, you’re shooting from the hip: the account of events here is disputed and at least one version has the priest gently explaining the need to be in a state of grace before the funeral started.

I think it is another example of two planets colliding- the Modernist world, and the preVat 2 cut&dried one. The language & morality on each is incomprehensible to the other. It is tragic and like a civil war. Where is the reality?- because it seems that the notion of the sacraments (here, communion) is to the modern thinker, a question of rights. Another example being marriage, demanded beyond civil union, because of the perceived spiritual blessing; making a certain type of love legitimate before God (and forcing people to become accepting).
It is possible that the outrage provoked here was essentially political, and spiritually ignorant. A different outrage altogether was shown recently when a parish in Lancashire had its tabernacle desacrated. The priest has called it a hate crime. It is interesting when some people see the Reality enough to actually hate it- a sort of backhanded compliment?

“Where is your sense of compassion and kindness? The woman being buried was a life long Catholic who sent all of her children to Catholic schools.”

Kelly- when a parent allowed a sinful child to live in the O.T., they brought down the curses of the children upon the parents. It’s called the Covenant, and that same biblical warning applies in the NEW ‘COVENANT’ (in my blood- the very words of Eucharistic Institution).

This priest acted (for probably the first- and last- time) not only as a Catholic, but as an Apostolic Christian. His bishop should be tried for heresy, and this woman excommunicated. Her mother should have been denied a Christian burial, if she went to the grave allowing her diseased daughter to live, and/or continue as an heir to her estate. Excommunication, and ‘cutting off’ someone from one’s family are the two sides to the same biblical coin.

Sodomites and lesbians are the nadir of a society’s collapse. God is not mocked. The US is ripe for destruction, and all of it will be blamed in a saner age, on the false shepherds who did not call down the judgment of God on this Obamanation.

“Her mother should have been denied a Christian burial, if she went to the grave allowing her diseased daughter to live, and/or continue as an heir to her estate.”
Thinks Fr. John. (Can he really be a priest? No.)

“Poor old PB16, trying to run the show with priests like Fr. Guarnizo.”

What an incredibly insulting and disparaging remark! Are you trying to be funny Mr. Whippy?

I would say that it is thanks to courageous, faithful priests like Fr. Marcel Guarnizo – and millions more like him – who was doing no more than ‘obeying the rules’ as clearly written out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Canon Law, that the Holy Catholic Church will continue to spread the unadulterated Faith in the world.

It is certain that Our Holy Father would whole-heartedly concur with the action of Fr. Guarnizo.

Please let me remind you that Fr. G has caused the Church, in the most conciliatory and healing terms, to apologise for his actions. We read of “personal regret ” from the Church at his behaviour. I fear you do not share this sentiment.

Kathleen, clearly the Church does not like loose cannon on the deck, and Fr G certainly should keep up with Vatican policy to avoid bringing the Church into disrepute.

Apart from that it is a cruel and horrible thing to reject someone in the way he did, at the time that he did.

Toad,
By the fact that our exemplary Pope Benedict XVI is faithful to the CCC and Canon Law, I would say it was pretty certain that he would agree with Fr. Guarnizo’s action. Maybe he would have gone about it another way – that’s possible – but he would affirm that Holy Communion should not be given to someone who is living in flagrant mortal sin.

Mr. Whippy,
It was not the Universal Church who “personally regretted” Fr. Guarnizo’s behaviour, but just the Archdiocese of Wahington (or some members of it).

And perhaps Mr. W you haven’t bothered to read all the comments and links above, but may I just remind you that Fr. Guarnizo attempted to forewarn Ms Johnson she should not step forward for Communion, but not only did she scurry out of the sacristy before he’d finished explaining this to her, but her ‘partner’ then stepped in his way to avoid him following her! That (as I pointed out way back on this thread) was the testimony of a first hand witness at the scene.

On a point of accuracy, I did not however say the “Universal Church”, but if you’d “bothered to read all the article” and response, I spoke of the published letter which would certainly not have gone out unapproved, especially on such a hot topic…we will surely agree here. The Diocese said (not me!) that Fr G “showed a lack of pastoral sensitivity” and “was not in accordance with Archdiocesan policy”. So, may I quietly suggest that your disagreement here might be better directed at the Church? You will agree with me that any Archdiocese does not make important policy independently of the Holy See.

I think that the Church, given what took place, had a difficult task and is doing the best it can to pour oil on troubled waters, where an irresistible force met an immovable object. If I were the Archbishop, on hearing of this squall, I would have held my head in my hands and let out a heartfelt groan crying “Oh No! – not on my patch, please!”

On a point of accuracy, was the word “scurried” used in the article as you indicate? Or is that how you imagine it, though like me, you were not present?

On yet another point where we will agree, the Johnson couple strike me as being rather difficult, for their wish to have Fr G removed from his post is vindictive: “nursing their wrath to keep it warm” as a poet once said. My guess is that he will be moved elsewhere, for his sake and that of the Church. A bit of pragmatism…

There, Kathleen; together we have found several points where we agree! It’s a storm in a teacup, so c’mon, let’s skip hand in hand towards even greater accord!

I would venture to say that any archdiocese WOULD make policy independent of the Holy See. Lumen Gentium put bishops on equal par with the pope, even though Pope Paul the VI made a note to attach to the end of that document before it’s approval, it was never read or probably ever even noticed. I’ll have to pull that document out again to read through it. But that was basically the outcome of V2. Nowadays, so much is left up to a bishop’s “interpretation” (i.e. music appropriate for the mass) and they do not always take direction from the pope.

Case in point is communion in the hand but I won’t even go there in this thread……………….

Fine Mr. Whippy, I’m very happy to “skip hand in hand towards even greater accord” with you, but disagreeing on certain details does not mean we need to end up having a bunfight ;-).

Yes, I know you didn’t use the word Universal Church; I used it to stress the difference to the diocesan Church, which is what you were talking about.

About the word ‘scurry’ describing Ms Johnson’s hurried departure from the sacristy…… I think in all truth that was not the word used. I haven’t the article in front of me right now, but I think the meaning was the same. It seems she didn’t want to hear what the priest had to say to her!!

Johnson and partner’s intent to remove Fr. Guarnizo from his parish is indeed ‘vindictive’. One could wonder whether this was not a plot of the ‘gay lobby’ all along to get rid of a ‘troublesome priest’!!

.“Johnson and partner’s intent to remove Fr. Guarnizo from his parish is indeed ‘vindictive’. One could wonder whether this was not a plot of the ‘gay lobby’ all along to get rid of a ‘troublesome priest’!!” Plausible, Kathleen, but pretty certain not to be the case. If the naughty old gay couple really wanted to be rid of Fr. Guarnizo, why didn’t they just cut his head off? *

I like your post except only for a minor point; I don’t think that the homosexualists actually have a lobby in the sense of plotters conniving to remove “this meddlesome priest’*. That would be a ‘lezzy under the bed’ too far. I don’t mean your bed, I hasten to say.

*….Oh Beckett! (spookily enough, also a difficult and obstinate man). It all ended in tears of course.

I fear that Toad is turning his piercing gaze towards Mecca, with his universal solution of “Off with their heads!”. Gawd ‘elp those ‘ens ‘e keeps if Sharia law is established in his domain. Who knows, he may soon appear on a minaret near you, bawling out “Allah o akhbar” (and he is) 5 times a day and sporting a fetching turban!